“HaeckelÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s embryos
Are not the way it goes.
Fish and human parts
Are different from the start”

What is Wells referring to here? The fact that the pattern of fish and human gastrulation is different? Or the fact that fish have a lot of yolk and humans don’t? To me, the fish and human parts seem very similar:

I am well aware that Haeckel’s recapitulation theory is wrong. I don’t think that’s what Wells was getting at. I think he’s denying that vertebrate embryos share many features in their body plans after gastrulation, and denies that these shared features are evidence for common descent. What do you think?

_Dave

Could you please quote whatever it is that Wells wrote that makes you think that? -ds

You say you’ll stop the revolution
Well you know
There’s a sea change underway
You tell me that it’s “evolution” [Darwinian, that is]
Well you know
We all see change, anyway. [microevolution, that is]
But when you talk about mutation [random, that is]
Don’t you know that you can count it out.
Don’t you know it’s gotta be ID
All ID, All ID [that’s responsible for CSI and IC]

You say that it’s natural selection
Well you know
How’d it make a body plan?
You use your imagination [just-so evolution stories]
Well you know
It’s doing what nature can’t
But when you make monkeys of people, it’s minds you hate [denying there’s anything special about the human mind]
All I can tell you is, Darwin, it’s getting late [actually, it’s over already]
Don’t you know it’s gotta be ID
All ID, All ID

You say it’s against the constitution [to teach it in science class, that is]
Well you know
That judge ain’t right in his head [bad decision]
You hide behind your institutions [avoiding debate]
Well you know
You’d better free your mind — it’s dead [Darwinism]
But if you go worshipping ideas of Charlie, now
You ain’t gonna draw right conclusions anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gotta be ID
All ID, All ID

Haeckel’s recapitulation hypothesis is not entirely wrong at all. Every metazoan develops through a stage called the gastrula. That stage has a single opening into what will become the digestive system. In the Deuterostomia (Echinoderms and Chordates), that opening is closely associated with, if not identical with, the anus of the adult. As the name suggests the mouth develops secondarily. In the Protostomia (most of the rest of the Metazoa) that opening becomes the mouth wih the anus developing secondarily. Similarly, the nervous system of all embryos develops from the ectoderm of the embryo by a process of infolding. In all vertebrate embryos the liver arises as an outgrowth of the embryonic gut as do the lungs. There are many other similaities in the development of embryos and the features of the adults they eventually become. Just because Ernst Haeckel, in his Darwinian enthusiasm, presented some rather idealized diagrams is no reason to dismiss him out of hand. He was a darn good zoologist and a fabulous artist and naturalist who just got a little carried away. So did August Weismann. Someone once wisely said that Weismann was more Darwinian than Darwin and Darwin was more Lamarckian than Lamarck.

One thing that Lamarck said about the origin of new structures impresses me and may have a kernel of truth in it. He said they originated as a result of what he called an “inner urge.” Urges come from within. As far as I am concerned so did everything else.

How do you hide-bound, myopic Darwimpian mystics out there in never-never land like those departures from the “one true faith,” the most infantile, over tested, under verified hypothesis in the history of science? I hope they tie you up for a week. Relax with the Exlax.

The heart in every vertebrate embryo begins as a simple tube like the heart of Amphioxus which progressively metamorphoses into one with two chambers, like a fish, next into three like an amphibian then finally into four like a bird or mammal. Furthermore it does this without losing a drop of blood. Don’t tell me that Haeckel’s recapitulation “theory” is “entirely wrong.” It only proves you are no embryologist. Got that? Write that down.

I never said it did. What I was referring to was the number of chambers or are you going to deny that as well? It starts out as a tube and ends up with four chambers. That recapitulates our ancestry to a tee or do I understand that you don’t think we had any ancestors. Don’t be shy, speak right up. I very carefully used the words “like a.” Words have meaning and I used mine carefully as I always do. Don’t misrepresent me. It makes me irritable. Got that?

Why don’t you tell us what you believe. That is what I have always done. That is why have so many enemies. I am always willing to have a few more.

[…] selection having a major role in shaping evolution is lousy. Yet children are told the theory has Overwhelming Evidence. Indeed, after 50 years of investigation, we can’t convincingly demonstrate selection for […]